AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.—I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Two contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The first is that the Disciplinary Authority has not met the obser-vasions made by the Enquiry Officer while reporting that the guilt was not proved against him, and has improperly come to the conclusion that the charge was established against him.
I have gone through the report of the Enquiry Officer and also the order of the Disciplinary Authority. I am satisfied that the Disciplinary Authority has reversed the finding of the Enquiry Officer by taking into account the circumstances mentioned there in. Therefore, it cannot be said that he has not taken into consideration the circumstances pointed out by the Enquiry Officer.
The only other argument is that after remand by this Court, although the particulars of the previous punishment inflicted upon the petitioner had been supplied to him the appellate authority did not take into consideration the circumstances pointed out by the petitioner nor indicated that those punishments were not properly inflicted. I am unable to accept this contention. The appellate authority could not sit upon the judgment in respect of the previous punishment. All that he had to consider was that the petitioner had been previously punished and to take into account the nature of the offences and punishment inflicted. This has already been done and, therefore, no fault can be found with the appellate order.
In these circumstances, there is no force in this writ petition and the same is summarily rejected.